In reply to a post by David_W:

By the way, much of consumer law, including the consumer rights in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and UTCCR 1999, ill all be replaced by the Consumer Protection Act 2015 from some time later this year - likely 1 October. The old law will apply for problems arising before that commencement date.

For problems arising before the date, or contracts entered into before that date?

(Just a POI, not a quibble).

whats unclear about it?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by David_W:

By the way, much of consumer law, including the consumer rights in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and UTCCR 1999, ill all be replaced by the Consumer Protection Act 2015 from some time later this year - likely 1 October. The old law will apply for problems arising before that commencement date.

For problems arising before the date, or contracts entered into before that date?

(Just a POI, not a quibble).

I meant Consumer Rights Act 2015 (I got the name of the new law wrong in my earlier post).

The transitional provisions Statutory Instrument for the bulk of the changes in the new Act is not yet available, even in draft form (or if it is, my searches have failed to dig it up). The transitional provisions will make it clear which law applies when.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

whats unclear about it?

The justification for the various assertions you've made earlier in the thread are unclear.

In some cases, I believe your assertions are trivially demonstrated to be wrong. There is nothing that binds Plusnet irrevocably to providing 24/7 support to existing customers as the contract gives Plusnet the right to vary the terms of existing consumer contracts (subject to the safeguards I have already explained).


Anyone can take advice from someone with a greater or lesser degree of relevant legal experience. I would expect a legal executive working in family law (who may have studied no contract or consumer law at all) to have rather less of a clue about consumer contracts than a top QC specialising in contract law and statutory interpretation.

I'm down at the neophyte end of the scale - a final year standard law undergraduate who did well on the contract law part of his degree studies. I'm not going to get it right all the time - but I am trying to do what I am trained to do, which is explain the reasons and authority for my conclusions, also identifying those areas where the outcome is uncertain.


Legal advice and conclusions ultimately stand or fall on their reasons. I've given my reasons further up the thread. Without reasons, your conclusions are merely an appeal to (potentially mistaken) authority.

My contract law tutor is a solicitor dealing exclusively with contentious obligations matters - primarily contractual disputes. He kept reminding us that there would be no such thing as a legal dispute and no need for the courts if there was always certainty over the legal position. He also pointed out that you can go to court believing you have an extremely strong case and lose because you missed something or the judge decided to side with the other party on one key point.

Lawyers can say what they believe the correct answer is and why, but nobody can be certain what the outcome would be if the matter was put before a competent court.

Yet they are still, on their Web-Pages, trying to attract custom by:-

Multi-award winning broadband provider
with 24/7 UK based customer service

Surely that means, now that they have sent TBB this email, that they are "knowingly" attracting customers under the basis of mis-selling the 24/7 support?

A simple question.

What is unclear that plusnet are advertising 24/7 uk support on their products page which is linked from their t&c's?

you also forget legislation always trumps contracts when the two conflict. ofcom legislation does not allow isp's to change contracts at their own discretion without informing customers and offering them an opt-out.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 26-Jun-15 23:45:08)

Plusnet seem to "think" they are not changing the contract but actually improving the service!

However when "speaking" to a Plusnet employee from the COT they started to stress when I made completely clear that I was aware of the law and regulations behind operators changing service's during customer's contract periods, and when I started quoting the Terms and Conditions word for word without actually having them to hand he stressed and asked that I hold...

Unfortunately this wasn't to fetch a manager "that I did ask for" but to actually fetch a script, quoting the same statement we've all read and then continuing to repeat that I can leave Plusnet "no issues" but I will be held to the full amount of the ETF's.

I ended the call making damn sure that he was aware this wasn't over and that all regulatory bodies would be informed of such incorrect practices being carried out by Plusnet plc and that I will be in touch further with their complaints department..

My next question for the likes of Ofcom or another body representing the consumers will be "If Plusnet continue with these changes, and Plusnet keep me hanging on waiting, then would I be in the wrong to terminate any further payments" after all as the agreement I signed is no longer binding due to the change and is therefor void, my responsibilities as the other party are excused by default right?

this can go against them, if they inform customers then after 30 days the customer can be assumed to accept the changes.

However, if they dont inform anyone, the contracts are all effectively null and void and anyone can leave when they want without penalty.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 27-Jun-15 00:48:38)

I think David has explained very well how the law as written and how we might understand it are not always how courts will interpret it. Particularly when the wording in the contract is badly constructed.

Way back, I referred a few times to legal niceties are going to arise. The first thing that made me say that was the simple word "other" that appears in the third quoted clause, immediately following the one to provide a Help Desk. That "other" is hugely significant. The position Plusnet must have at the moment is that it excludes the Helpdesk from the following reference to the website. They are very possibly correct in raw contract law in that belief.

David also picked up on its significance and has pointed it out.

I think we are all agreed that Plusnet will have to back down on this. Not on the change to the hours, but to their apparent refusal to regard it as a detrimental change to the terms.

The reason they will have to back down is that there are at heart two classes of law involved. Contract law and Consumer Protection law. Many Acts and many names, but those are suitable umbrella terms. Under contract law they might have a chance, but consumer protection law directs courts to find in favour of the consumer when there is lack of clarity or certainty under contract law. In particular what a reasonable member of the public may sensibly understand from the information presented by the seller.

The widespread presentation on the website and other publicity of the 24/7 Helpdesk is what matters, particularly as until at least late on Friday the 24/7 statements remain. The legally questionable clause referring to the website I don't think matters in the least in practical terms. It would if it went to court, but it won't.

It would cost Plusnet a huge amount whatever the result. All that's at stake for them is the early-leaving charges they hope to be able to claim from an unknown but possibly small and certainly decreasing number of customers.

Most of us here I hope fall into the classification of reasonable and sensible, at least in the real world . It is highly likely Ofcom will agree with us in their regulatory capacity, and Plusnet are also likely to get a kick in the backside from the ASA.

What effect this will have on their reputation remains to be seen. There is certainly damage.
_{Edit - Typo.}

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 27-Jun-15 01:00:04)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

What is unclear that plusnet are advertising 24/7 uk support on their products page which is linked from their t&c's?

The product web page has two functions.


Firstly, the web page is an advertisement inducing people to enter into a contract with Plusnet. In a legal sense, as is usual for an advert, the web page is likely to be what is known as an "invitation to treat" - an inducement to enter into a contract.

Secondly, the product web page is incorporated by reference into the terms of the contract. As I have already explained, there is uncertainty as to how much of the web page is incorporated.


Two key requirements for the creation of a contract are offer and acceptance. An offer must be made with the intention to be bound by its terms on acceptance by the other party. The acceptance must be unconditional.

When Plusnet display the web page to a visitor, they do not appear to be making an offer in the contractual sense. Plusnet have no idea when displaying the web page whether it is technically feasible to provide the desired service to the potential customer's premises. It is this potential impossibility of providing the advertised service that indicates the web page is an invitation to treat, not an offer.

The most likely scenario is:

• product web page - invitation to treat
• customer order - offer based on Plusnet's standard terms
• Plusnet confirmation - unconditional acceptance of the customer's offer, which is the point the contract between Plusnet and the customer comes into being

There are other possibilities, but we will stick with that one, as it will not help our understanding to get bogged down with discussion of multiple invitations to treat and the circumstances in which a contractual offer can be accepted by a party's silence.


Nothing in any invitation to treat is binding unless the terms in question appear in the offer.


An item appearing on a shop shelf with a price next to it is probably the most famous modern example of an invitation to treat. The offer is made when the customer takes the item to the till and offers the amount displayed on the shelf in payment. The shop assistant can accept the customer's offer, but is not bound to do so - they can reject the offer and possibly make a counter-offer to the customer ("The price is actually £x. Do you accept?"). The customer cannot insist on purchasing the item at the displayed price, as they are not entitled to rely on the invitation to treat - it is merely an indication of the terms that might be acceptable to the shop.


A shop deliberately displaying false prices is likely to commit an offence under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277). This regulatory requirement sits apart from the contractual position - any offences under CPUTR 2008 do not directly change the contractual position, though the facts behind the CPUTR 2008 convictions might indicate that consumer contracts formed as a result of unfair trading practices are partly or wholly defeated by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or the law on misrepresentation in contract.

The distinction between the contractual and regulatory position is something I will return to shortly. Meanwhile, Plusnet might want to acquaint themselves with CPUTR 2008 regulation 5, specifically regulation 5(5)(g). As an advertisement, the web page is also subject to the regulations on advertising standards, and it is an open question whether Plusnet are in compliance with these regulations bearing in mind their intention to withdraw the advertised 24/7 helpdesk support for residential customers.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

you also forget legislation always trumps contracts when the two conflict. ofcom legislation does not allow isp's to change contracts at their own discretion without informing customers and offering them an opt-out.

The starting point is that the regulatory position does not change the contractual position at all, as with my example of the shop displaying false prices. If the shop is successfully prosecuted under CPUTR 2008, this conviction will not force the shop to sell the product at the false low price. However, there are some circumstances in which the regulatory position might affect the contractual position.


If Ofcom ruled that the change to helpdesk hours is material detriment that should give consumers the right to penalty free termination under the clause required to be inserted into end-use contracts via the Communications Act 2003 and General Condition 9, this seems likely to give rise to a right of termination for the affected consumers. I'm fairly certain that this right to termination would arise under UTCCR 1999, on the basis that the term holding the customer to the minimum contract period is unfair considering that Plusnet have not fulfilled a regulatory obligation (it appears to fall within UTCCR 1999 schedule 2 paragraph 1(o) - a term is unfair when it "[obliges] the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his"). If I'm wrong that a right to terminate would arise under UTCCR 1999, it would probably arise in equity, though I'm not going to the possible equitable routes to a remedy.


If Plusnet were convicted of an offence under CPUTR 2008 in relation to advertising a 24/7 helpdesk when there is no intention to continue providing it, that might also be prima facie evidence of UTCCR 1999 unfairness affecting terms in the contracts of those signing up to Plusnet now that the change to helpdesk hours has been announced. I don't propose to explore the precise effects of UTCCR 1999 in this scenario any further.


The point I'm trying to draw out is that it is too simplistic to say statutory regulation trumps contract law. Failure to meet a regulatory obligation might provide evidence that a contractual remedy exists for some or all customers, but the contractual position must be resolved under contract law and possibly equity. You cannot assume that contracts that are affected by regulatory non-compliance automatically become voidable.